7500 for USED cables? Are they joking?

Bomarc, how can you prove something subjective? Measurement is objective. Each person on this planet has differences in their inner/outer ear "configuration" which implies no two people hear exactly the same. What has been shown recently is the old problem with double-blind testing and audio. Typically, a number of non-audiophile people are asked to detect differences in electronics, etc. The tallied results indicated that all systems sound the same and people detect small variations in loudness and tend to pick the louder system. When the loudness parameter is held constant, the results indicate there is no difference. Audiophiles (and others) are/can be trained to detect small variations in phase, loudness, frequency, etc. Which implies that double-blind testing can be used to prove there are audible differences we can’t measure but we can hear. A prime example is solid-state electronics. These units have measurable errors well below audibility, yet to trained ears there are characteristic signatures to various components and even manufacturers.

As far as what cannot be measured but eventually proves true, Van Allen hypothesized there should be radioactive belts surrounding the earth, and he was able to prove the hypothesis once the US launched its first spacecraft into orbit due to insufficient measurement tools based on the ground at the time.

Here we have a situation where there are clearly audible differences in wire, for whatever reason, but there is no physical measurement to support what we hear. I assume as do many others there is a measurable phenomenon to account for the differences. Either scientists are attempting to measure the wrong thing or we need an outside-the-box thought to devise the measurement needed.

Sean, I have been a musician in a hobby sense for 25 years although I have played in groups, jazz band, etc. I play guitar. I have been trained to be an Electrical Engineer, but I currently design and build computer networks. Part of my training in the EE realm included sound reinforcement since I really wanted to be a full-time musician or active in the industry. I have done my own recordings on 4 track devices for some time (15 years). I became an audiophile about 20 years ago. I am currently in my early 40s.

I have not doubted a single word you said. I attempted to clarify a staement about CAST and threw in a Wadia comment supporting your statement. There are many realities in music. The guy in the studio has one set of circumstances. The sound reinforcement guy has another set. The music aficionado has another goal.

I do agree the upfront (prerecording) process is very different from what one might assume. Sound reinforcement can assume numerous “faces” from quality to quantity. The audiophile’s goal (or mine anyway) is to accurately reproduce what ends up of the media no matter what happened during the process. The ultimate reference is unamplified music or natural sounds. Personally, I have never thought a mic (Shure SM-57 or whatever) sitting 12” in front of a single Greenback sounded like the real thing on recordings. Especially if the sound pressure was such that it deformed the mic’s membrane.

Acoustics are everything. Change the room, and the system’s reproduction characteristics will change period. This is measurable. Move the system in the room and the acoustics change. I do have my speaker’s anechoic measurements (Dunlavy); unfortunately I don’t listen to music in such an environment, so for my acoustic environment they are essentially invalid. I do believe DSP correction devices can help as long as the correction is in the digital domain.

Again, if you don’t hear it, don’t buy it, but most of all enjoy it regardless of the pieces.

If I can sell this whole hobby SHORT I would.

Lmb: Here's where we differ: We both agree that there are cables which sound different when compared sighted, but which are indistinguishable in a blind test. You conclude that there must be something wrong with the blind test. I, and the scientific community that studies such things, conclude that sighted information is a factor in the perceived difference in sound. You're entitled to your conclusion. And I'm entitled to point out that mine has some solid experimental work backing it up.

You ask scientists to come up with some measurement that will explain what you perceive. Don't hold your breath. They already have their explanation, you see.

I don’t think we are communicating, but at least we can discuss this rationally and agreeing we disagree is certainly a valid outcome – nice change. I was trained to be a scientist. I do believe in repeatable, documentable processes. What I was trying to say in the last post is that previous double-blind testing did not involve people adept at detecting small differences in phase response, amplitude variances at a particular frequency, etc. I believe subjective audio analysis cannot be done by a layman lacking in the skills to perform the task. The listener must be trained to recognize and practice recognizing minute differences in audio phenomenon. Something that is not instinctual. My understanding is human ears seem to be designed to aid our survival (e.g. direction, distance) not our pursuit of accurate sound reproduction.

In a very recent test with audio reviewers, a small sample set which can imply invalid sample size, in a double-blind scenario gave consistent, repeatable scores well above random guessing, (80% and higher if memory serves me). The scientists then hypothesized with further testing, this may invalidate the layman testing done previously. I agree with the premise. I agree more testing needs to be done, but at least there is some reasonable assertion that we’re not all convincing ourselves of manifestations of our minds. I think this holds true in many disciplines. Article appeared in TAS or Stereophile and no I don’t believe everything I read.

I am with you man. I understand the issues on your side-of-the-fence, which most of the time is my side-of-the-fence. However, my perceptions tell me otherwise and on this one, and I have jumped ship. I am simply saying consider it. Whack, the ball’s in your court.